“Good points. I was only giving the basic idea in a nutshell so skipped the tweaks. I hadn't thought about the ACA, but I'd recommend scrapping that. That would be about $25 billion less.
There are a lot of things I left out to keep it short.
I did think about capital gains being less initially but, over a period of years, being about the same or being picked up in the estate tax. (I would close most of the estate tax loopholes). About $700 billion was reported in long-term capital gains last year (I don't know how much of that was from the sale of primary residences - I'd keep that exclusion). If $350 billion of that is from people with an income of over $100,000 and sales are curtailed by 1/2 initially because of the new rates, that's about $35 billion less in revenue, but more in the future as assets are eventually sold.
The 13% would be tax deductible. So someone earning $1,000,000 would pay 30.8% in fed income tax.
In the case of your guy selling his business for $10 million, he could sell on an installment sale which he probably would anyway under current law. If he only earns $500,000, he wouldn't be in the top bracket. A 10 year installment sale would have him only paying 36% on that $10 million capital gain.”
“Or run on this tax proposal which would raise about $100 billion more (10% more) than was raised in 2011 from individual federal income tax.
1) Zero tax on the first $100,000 of your earnings
2) 40% on the amount of your earnings above $100,000 but below $2 million
3) 60% on the amount above $2 million
No deductions for anybody for anything except property, state, and local taxes paid. All sources of income subject to these rates including capital gains, dividends, and municipal bond interest.
Someone earning $150,000, for example, would pay 13.3%, earning $250,000 would pay 24%, earning $500,000 would pay 32%, $1 million would pay 36%, and so on up the ladder.
Generally speaking, anyone earning below $200,000 (98% of tax filers) would benefit from this and be likely to vote for the person proposing it. Those earning less would have a very strong reason to vote for that person.
“Ah...that won't work. You just have to think through the consequences.
Let's take somebody living in California, where the income tax rate is already 13% for high earners and then you'd have to include the 3.8% tax on passive income that is due under the ACA. So a high income tax earner, somebody above $2 million, would be facing a rate of nearly 77% on every dollar earned above that amount.
The problem is that most of the income earned in excess of $1 million by individuals is capital gain income, meaning the taxpayer determines when the tax is triggered by selling the asset. So let's say you're in the top bracket of 77% combined and you started a company from scratch and it's now worth $10 million that produces a modest annual income equal to 5%, which is $500K. If you were to sell the asset you'd pay $7.7 million in tax and have $2.3 million left. To just produce the same income you'd have to get a return on that money of 22%, which is basically impossible. The result would be that people would never sell such assets, thus the capital gain income would be substantially lower than reported in your link, which throws off your estimated tax revenue number.”
“I wish people like Paul Krugman, Jared Bernstein, etc. would stop referencing or linking to the CBO report on income distribution since 1979. They are undercutting their message by using misleading data. The CBO report, while showing a fairly accurate, inflation adjusted, 275% increase in the average income for the 1% since 1979, wildly over states the income growth for the lower groups.
They show, for example, a 40% increase for the middle 60%, while IRS data shows a 3.9% inflation adjusted increase ($47,450 to $49,300) for the second lowest quartile (top 50% minus the top 25%) from 1980 to 2010.
They show a 20% increase for the bottom 20% while the IRS shows a 15% decrease for the bottom 50% ($16,500 to $14,000).
This is because, if you read the definition of "income" in the CBO report you'll see that they include such things as the employer portion of FICA taxes paid, the employer portion of health insurance premiums paid, TOTAL Medicare payments made, TOTAL Medicaid payments paid, and all forms of govt. assistance including non-cash benefits.
Discussions of income inequality should stick to income per se, as most people view it. While useful in another context, counting all these other things as income, just muddles any discussion of income.
“The census bureau definition of household is pretty broad and includes anyone living in the same dwelling including family (husband, wife, minor children), subfamily (in-laws, cousins, aunts, grown children and spouses,etc.) and non-family (roommates). So I guess if he's using that definition he could be right, but that seems like quite a stretch.
Also, $51,000 median income seems pretty high. Its based on a survey of 100,000 households which would be only .08% of 120 million households. I aced all my statistics courses but, unfortunately, have forgotten 95% of what I ever knew, however interviewing 8 out of every 10,000 seems like a pretty small sample.”
“In conjunction with cutting way back on carbon emission, that would be a good idea. As an alternative to cutting way back, it wouldn't...........the mature rain forest is being depleted at a faster rate, probably, than the number of saplings that would be planted.”
2borknot2b on May 30, 2014 at 14:43:22
“That can't stop people from planting trees, the remaining Rainforests must be protected at all cost (and they will be.) Further destruction will continue to cause such damage that is it unimaginable. I also considered the fact that many school are placed on toxic lands and it may not be safe to eat food grown on site in ground. But container trees would be safe. Trees immediately transform any environment, indoors and out. Container trees in hallways by windows. Trees on either side of entrances, trees in class rooms (calming and give off oxygen.) If they are damaged, they are easy and cheep to replace. All they require in return is a little water and proper light, minimal TLC for "grooming" and good starting soil. The class rooms could have rotating "care" teams for the maintained tree. Say they need watered every x number of days. Now what would be interesting about this, is how the watering requirement would vary based on each classroom environment. Another geek POA. L.”
“The average household income is $70,000? Wow, I wonder where he got that figure.
Per the IRS, $8.3 trillion was reported in income on 145 million tax forms filed in 2011. That's an average of $57,000.
If you throw out the $1.7 trillion earned (reported, anyway) by the 1% you get an average of $46,000 for the bottom 99%.
If you factor in that 30% of the forms filed were joint forms then you get $35,000 average income per earner in the bottom 99%.
If you factor in that 50 million Social Security recipients, earning an average of $15,000, didn't have to file a tax return because their total income, including S.S. payments, was less than $25,000, you get an average of $28,000.
“I think I found your problem http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf
page 3 table 1
This gives the
noting the median is much lower is simply another way of measuring excess wealth that hs been taken by the 1 percent”
“So, if the 75 million people earning less than $15 an hour (half the workforce) happened to read your post, be inspired and tried to move on and get a better job, what jobs would they take?...........oh, that's right, they'd all open their own business.”
“Right, dictionaries try to include as many usages of a word as they deem fairly common.
The first definition is usually the literal definition, the most commonly used, or the original definition.
The second definition of entitlement is just saying someone "feels" they are in the position of the original definition. The third definition is what I meant when I said "real" (original or literal) meaning of the word has been lost............not really lost but largely supplanted by this new usage (by many people, anyway).
I have an old 1963 dictionary, for example, that doesn't even have the word "entitlement" in it. It defines "entitle" as "to give a title, right, or claim to something; to furnish the grounds for laying that claim".”
“Meaningful tariffs would make is cheaper for both U.S. chartered and foreign companies to locate production here for what they sell here in order to avoid the tariff. Prices on some products would rise because of the higher American wage, but not as much as you would think. Overall, wages would rise more than prices (because of a tighter labor market due to producing more of what we consume) and people would be better off.
We could actually use a little wage-push inflation.”
“Actually Social Security is an entitlement program and welfare spending isn't. The "title" in "entitlement" connotes ownership. It's just that the real meaning of the word has been lost, somehow.”
CeePeeDee on May 28, 2014 at 21:24:55
“When people withdraw their own money from the insurance they are entitled to it because it is their money.
en·ti·tle·ment noun \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\
: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)
: a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group
From Merriam Webster. It is easy to see that 2 out of 3 definitions allude to special privileges.”
tamss13 on May 28, 2014 at 19:06:29
“I wish more people would understand the difference between entitlement and spending”
GrandmothersRock on May 28, 2014 at 18:34:20
“It's a promise this country made to workers who gave every pay period, allowing the government to hold in trust and collect interest plus whoever you were employed with that "ducked taxes" to contribute you did, because, we are not robots, our bones break, wear out, carple tunnel for repetitive movement of hands. Standing in temperatures below 20 degrees in meat packing plants and sustaining on the job "arthritis" in hand and feet and joints to make our money. WE didn't steal it, scam for it, nor should we be ashamed to collect what was promised to us, and keep the "theft by legislation" out of the Trust. The first one to "borrow 483 billion dollars was Reagan w/Iran Contra. Then daddy Bush when he was elected, "borrowed another 783 billion from our trust and stated?: It's like an IOU, and that we the social security users now, would have back in ten years." Ha. Ten turned into twenty, twenty into thirty and soon it will be 40 years of amnesia the GOP have on that promise to America.
Those of us old enough to remember in our 20's this actor would act like they would pay the trust back. Hey it's just like republicans now, "acting" like they care about US.”
joelj on May 28, 2014 at 17:19:54
“correct. Those ONLY those who have contributed through payroll deductions are elligible (and therfore "entitled") to receive benefits.”
“Now that I'm older and wiser, when I look back on my life, there were certainly things I said or did that are still cringe-worthy to this day. I can't imagine the cringe level this guy will feel if he becomes more fully human with age and experience and looks back on such a publicly made statement.”
TibbieLuvr on May 28, 2014 at 11:42:26
“Big if there. So big, in fact, that I doubt it will happen.”
“Exactly. If I had more than 250 words to use, I would have brought that up too. There are currently about 650,000 here on H1B visas, 85,000 more a year coming under current law and 135,000 more a year to be allowed in under the proposed immigration bill.”
“As Harry Truman said, "the main job of the President is public relations".
The PR job he is currently working on is that if we could only graduate more people in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) then we would be more "competitive", unemployment would fall, average wages would rise, and happy days would be here again.....this makes it seem like he's got a plan and is actually doing something. All politicians saying increased education is the key are playing the same PR game.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics did a study not long ago that projected 3.9 new STEM college graduates by 2020 but only 2.4 million new job openings in these fields over that same time frame. There are currently more STEM graduates looking for jobs in their fields as there are job openings. The unemployment rate for college graduates is now about 4% (over 10% for the 22-29 year old crowd) and has never been higher than 2.1% in the past when we were at or near full employment. That 4% doesn't even count those employed in low wage jobs unrelated to the fields in which they graduated.
The average income of an engineer has only increased by 5% since 2000. If there is this big skills shortage, where's the spike in salaries?
We will NEVER be able to compete globally on an un-level trade playing field. What these politicians are trying to hide is our need for meaningful tariffs like all well-run countries have in place.”
mark rand on May 28, 2014 at 14:34:40
“tariffs are passed to the consumer, it's called "inflation"”
BBackSoon on May 28, 2014 at 09:47:25
Well said. I have been saying the very same thing for years.
If we have such a shortage of 'Qualified Workers' then those jobs that are not being filled would see the wages go up to attract more workers. But wages are flat in almost every field.
This is just the next phase of the Purple Squirrel.”
5GenCali on May 28, 2014 at 09:46:52
“Don't blame Obama. The tech companies in the valley continually claim they can't find engineers. Politicians think .. Oh we need to prepare more people in-country for these jobs through education. But what the tech companies REALLY want is to import more cheap labor, using H1B visas, in order to drive down wages. The misery wage growth is supporting evidence.”
“And this from a guy who is famous for complaining about the higher taxes he would have to pay on the business he was running in his head............even though the top corporate tax rate hadn't been raised since 1952 and nobody was even talking about raising it again.............not exactly the best source for advice on business, economics or the constitution, let alone broader societal and moral questions.”
“Kopczuk said none of the sources showed a significant rise in wealth inequality over the recent decades?
The Saez-Zuckman data shows the U.S. 1%'s share of total wealth climbing from 25% in 1980 to 41% in 2010. Piketty is actually being pretty conservative showing it increasing from 30% to 35% over the same period. In either case I'm sure it is higher today since the stock market is up over 60% since 2010 and the 1% hold most of the shares.”
“I wouldn't, but a lot of Americans would if the price was right.”
garynofishing on May 27, 2014 at 12:24:29
“They still wouldn't
I live 35 miles north of the Mexican Border and I always hire Mexican people for all of my home and property maintenance. They do Superior Tile work and I know for certain that some of them didn't have Green Cards. I don't care either----I trust them and will hire them again and again in the future”
“I'm about as progressive as you could get on economic issues (tax the super rich a ton more and spend that on jobs, get out of all our so-called "free" trade deals, switch to renewables as fast as humanly possible, etc.) BUT I'm with the anti-illegal immigration crowd.........especially at a time when real unemployment is so high and average wages are so low. What, really, is the point of even having borders if you're not going to enforce immigration laws. My guess is that there are a lot more legal immigrants against more illegal immigration than are for it. Start throwing employers of illegal immigrants in jail and the problem would be solved.
To call someone a Xenophobe just because he sees the merit in not flooding the labor market with even more unemployed people is just plain ridiculous. The CBO study, by the way, which shows a benefit to the economy after 20 years bases that estimate on full employment by then.”
littlepuffycloud on May 27, 2014 at 08:53:41
“...but you're not xenophobic, right?”
garynofishing on May 27, 2014 at 08:52:05
“Will YOU pick the peaches? Or the strawberries? Or hang the Drywall? If not, keep out of this arena”
“A 2012 Pacific Institute study showed that only 4% of California's water consumption is by individuals. 93% of it is used in agriculture. Much of that is wasted by using the spraying method in which a lot of it is evaporated instead of the drip method used in other arid parts of the world. Much of the agriculture is exported and much is used for animal production.
It takes about 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat, versus about 100 gallons to produce a pound of wheat. If someone showers once a day, they use about 14 gallons of water per day. Someone could reduce their meat consumption by one pound per 6 months and save as much water as not showering for six months.”
ModMark on May 27, 2014 at 11:44:35
“Or move the cattle industry back to the Great lake states which has plenty of water.”